why are ''age of enlightment'' republics dangerous?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

08-29-2008
hippifried

Using Hitler & the like as an argument in favor of monarchy is totally bogus & silly.

Autocracy is autocracy no matter how it's brought about. It's not leadership because it's not voluntary for those under control by the authoritarian. All arguments in favor of it are an argument in favor of caste, & a claim that everybody else is too stupid or inferior to make decisions for themselves. That's never been true & that attitude just pisses people off without accomplishing anything.

Anybody can be fired. The problem with autocrats is that it's almost impossible to get rid of them except through violent means. In this regard, dictators are easier. All you have to do is cap the punk & it's over. There's no line of succession. With monarchs, on the other hand, you need to eradicate the bloodline. You need to keep killing the family until nobody's left to claim the throne. When you look at it, most dictators are just stepping in to take up slack left over by deposing the last autocrat in a rebellion that wasn't well organized against that happening.

The Shah of Iran isn't dead. He lives in Potomac MD with his wife & heirs & is still officially recognized as Shah by the US government & others. There's still a bounty on his head & his children. His father wasn't deposed by the Ayatolla Khomeini. He was run off by a popular uprising of his subjects because he was an asshole. The only reason it didn't get more bloody than it did was because the Iranian army refused to obey the royal order to murder their fellow citizens en masse.

By contrast, in a democracy or democratic republic, every election is a potential revolution. We get the opportunity to usurp the current power structure without bloodshed every couple of years. Without an assumption of permanent authority, every political officer is required to justify their existence to the people on a regular basis. If they can't, they're outa there. Being accountable doesn't detract from the effectiveness of government. There's always a bureaucracy that handles the day to day running of any government. They're accountable too, because every 4 years, the potential exists for changing who they answer to. An autocrat answers to no one until somebody does something drastic. Who needs that kind of crap?
08-30-2008
Wizzer

muhmuh wrote:

Quote:

no it doesnt answer the question but it is smart in that it highlights the stupidity of your question
1) all of these supposed democratic leaders you numbered were dictators which is essentially the same as monarchs minus the inbreeding

I don't think you thoroughly anylized the question thus you gave me a less than thorough answers. I never mentioned that they were democratically elected leaders, yet you mentioned this in your answer and yet you call the question stupid. ( For the record Hitler was voted into power and Ayatollah Khomeini was brought to power by the Iranian people. Democracy at work and yet look at what has happened. ) Dictators and monarchs are not the same thing. That is like comparing Alexander the Great to Hitler ( as I mentioned to " Trish " ) or King Faisal I and II to Saddam Hussain. Many monarchs throughout history respected other tribes, nationalities, races and cultures. Dictators on the other hand didn't, they mercilessly suppressed other cultures or down right tried to exterminate them. For all the talk about democracy, Americans are the worst. The British and the French made peace with the Native American peoples of North American continent, albeit through bloodshed. Yet Americans went on a all-out conquering spree of North America, violently suppressing most of the Native Americans and even annexed the Kingdom of Hawaii just because it was there. Not to mention all the other dictators the Americans bank rolled.

muhmuh wrote:

Quote:

2) wilhelm 2. started world war 1 which wasnt exactly unbloody even compared to hitlers ww2

I am not going to deny that. Kaiser Wilhelm II and the Emperor of Austrio-Hungary did rush into war without truly thinking about it but thatis only one aspect of leadership. Another aspect of leadership is how you treat people and Hitler was 1000 times worse than they were. The Emperor Franz Joseph I was loved by his people especially by the Jews. He would even let his jewish soldiers have special equipment to do their kosher ceromonies. Tell me which of the leaders that I mentioned had concentration camps.

hippifried wrote:

Quote:

Using Hitler & the like as an argument in favor of monarchy is totally bogus & silly.

Yet the bloodshed, the oppression and the corruption of the 20th century still happened when countries lost their monarchs ( just on a far larger scale). "Bogus & silly" maybe, truthful most definately.

hippifried wrote:

Quote:

Autocracy is autocracy no matter how it's brought about.

True but not every autocrat is evil. There have been good autocrats. I think it goes without saying that a good autocrat (e.g. Franz Joseph I) is a lot better than an evil democratically elected leader ( e.g. Hitler and George W. Bush)

hippifried wrote:

Quote:

It's not leadership because it's not voluntary for those under control by the authoritarian.

A leader is a leader no matter how he or she became one. To say that would mean that an armed forces general ranks can't command his men because they didn't volunteer to do so. One of the most pernicious lies of today is that people have a right to choose their leaders and their laws. You can disobey the leaders orders and their laws but it's not choosing.

hippifried wrote:

Quote:

All arguments in favor of it are an argument in favor of caste, & a claim that everybody else is too stupid or inferior to make decisions for themselves.

The sad truth of the matter is that there will always be a type of cast system and no amount of egaliterian bullcrap will ever change that. For the record I am working class and proud and I can think and make decisions for myself. I just find people who whine about the idea of choosing a leader so inane. It doesn't matter who leads or rules, what matters is how they lead and rule.

hippifried wrote:

Quote:

Anybody can be fired.

What if he or she owns a company?

hippifried wrote:

Quote:

The problem with autocrats is that it's almost impossible to get rid of them except through violent means.

I beg to differ. There have been a few of bloodless coups ( Ethiopia's emperor and Egypt's last king. Only to be replaced by people who were a lot worse. )

hippifried wrote:

Quote:

In this regard, dictators are easier. All you have to do is cap the punk & it's over. There's no line of succession.

If you honestly believe that then you are fool. Once republican dictators are in power they kill, imprison or exile anybody they perceive as a threat. Then they turn they country into a police state ( far more oppressive than monarchies) to ensure they are not assassinated.

hippifried wrote:

Quote:

With monarchs, on the other hand, you need to eradicate the bloodline. You need to keep killing the family until nobody's left to claim the throne.

Typical answer of an " Age of Enlightenment" republican. "The sins of the son is that of his father."

hippifried wrote:

Quote:

When you look at it, most dictators are just stepping in to take up slack left over by deposing the last autocrat in a rebellion that wasn't well organized against that happening.

And yet many of these republican dictators do an even worse job than the monarchs.

hippifried wrote:

Quote:

The Shah of Iran isn't dead. He lives in Potomac MD with his wife & heirs & is still officially recognized as Shah by the US government & others. There's still a bounty on his head & his children.

Crown Prince of Iran hasn't been crowned as 'Shah' yet so thus 'The Shah of Iran' is dead. As I said typical " Age of Enlightenment" republican response "The sins of the son is that of his father."

hippifried wrote:

Quote:

His father wasn't deposed by the Ayatolla Khomeini. He was run off by a popular uprising of his subjects because he was an asshole.

The first right thing you've said but he was pulling the strings in France. The Shah of Iran was an asshole but Ayatolla Khomeini was a 1000 times worse.

hippifried wrote:

Quote:

The only reason it didn't get more bloody than it did was because the Iranian army refused to obey the royal order to murder their fellow citizens en masse.

The second true thing that you have mentioned you're on a roll

hippifried wrote:

Quote:

By contrast, in a democracy or democratic republic, every election is a potential revolution. We get the opportunity to usurp the current power structure without bloodshed every couple of years.

What planet are you from seriously? look at what happened in Kenya or Zimbabwe. If that isn't bloodshed then what is it?

hippifried wrote:

Quote:

Without an assumption of permanent authority, every political officer is required to justify their existence to the people on a regular basis. If they can't, they're outa there. Being accountable doesn't detract from the effectiveness of government. There's always a bureaucracy that handles the day to day running of any government. They're accountable too, because every 4 years, the potential exists for changing who they answer to.

Are you kidding, Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath yet George Bush has started 2 wars, ruined the Yank economy (it was technically already ruined,) Lied to the Yanks, brought in the Patriot acts, didn't prepare for Hurricane Katrina and has detained and tortured alleged "terrorists" so where's his impeachment tribunaral?
Accountability doesn't mean that a government is effective either. I am accountable for my actions but that doesn't mean every thing that I have done is a good action.

hippifried wrote:

Quote:

An autocrat answers to no one until somebody does something drastic. Who needs that kind of crap?

Most "Age of Enlightenment" republics have always been much more corrupt, tyrannical and oppressive than the monarchies they have replaced. 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st centuries (Nepal) have proved my points. So who needs that kind of crap?

What "hippifried" & "muhmuh" don't understand is that modern day republican governments are far mor centralized than a medieval kingdom could ever have been. Yet you seem to be defending republican governments, why?
The shocking truth of this world is that Constitutions, laws, 'the people' and whatever can never truly control any government whatsoever. All people can hope for is a government that truly respects their own people regardless of whatever. There are somthings in this world we cannot control, deal with it.
Bring back "Trish" she is far better than you two knuckleheads in a debate, at least she knows and acknowledges some history.
08-30-2008
muhmuh

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wizzer

republican dictators

completely and utterly hopeless fool
08-30-2008
Wizzer

muhmuh wrote:

Quote:

completely and utterly hopeless fool

What other inane insults are you going to hurl at me?
grow up child
08-30-2008
muhmuh

none since i make a point of not conversing with internetidiots
08-31-2008
hippifried

Leaders are followed.
Rulers just force their subjects into compliance.
There's a big difference between respect & grudging obedience.

Well Wiz,
You're never going to convince me because I don't buy into the idea that anyone needs to be ruled at all. The fact that there are people who seek despotic power isn't an argument for granting that despotic power to someone else just to keep the other guy from getting it. That's a mindset that belongs in the playground with the 5 year olds.

The reality is that the age of kings is over. It's not coming back, & no amount of philosophical rambling, historical revisionism & anecdotal cherry picking, or psychobabble mumbo jumbo is going to bring it back. It's not going to happen by force either, because no monarch can garner enough support among their own people to do it. They can only rely on a more powerful outside force to install them. The US did it twice in the last half century in the same part of the world. That's why we've had so much trouble with Iran & probably why we're having so much trouble in Afghanistan. Machievelli was an asshole, a fool, & a product of his time. All despots are malevolent by their very being because that flies in the face of individual self-determination. Installation of any despot, by anybody, for any reason is a blatant act of disrespect toward the people. Respect is a two way street & has to be earned. Anyone who claims power without earning the respect of those they would wield power over are just a malignant swelled head waiting for an axe. They're parasites. Deliberately installing a monarch or any other despot to rule over you is like shoving a tapeworm up your ass or rolling in a tub full of ticks. It does happen, but it's always regretted.
08-31-2008
Wizzer

hippifried wrote:

Quote:

Leaders are followed.
Rulers just force their subjects into compliance.
There's a big difference between respect & grudging obedience.

Again whatever you want to call them leaders, rulers etc it's all the same. They still have to command, protect, help etc the people which are beneath them. You are trying to make out they are different things.
You also go on about a monarch can't be respected. I beg to differ. There have been many monarchs throughout the ages that have been respected by their people. So please do your homework.

hippifried wrote:

Quote:

Well Wiz,
You're never going to convince me because I don't buy into the idea that anyone needs to be ruled at all.

Gosh this argument that has been refuted time and time again. We will always be ruled by something or someone. Deal with it.

hippifried wrote:

Quote:

The fact that there are people who seek despotic power isn't an argument for granting that despotic power to someone else just to keep the other guy from getting it. That's a mindset that belongs in the playground with the 5 year olds.

History again proves you wrong. Your type of mindset belongs belongs to be locked up in a looney bin.

hippifried wrote:

Quote:

The reality is that the age of kings is over. It's not coming back, & no amount of philosophical rambling, historical revisionism & anecdotal cherry picking, or psychobabble mumbo jumbo is going to bring it back.

What about the Cambodia in 1993. oh thats right you don't read up on history.

hippifried wrote:

Quote:

It's not going to happen by force either, because no monarch can garner enough support among their own people to do it.

You don't know what the future holds, so don't make them type of assumptions. Especially when you don't even know some basic history.

hippifried wrote:

Quote:

They can only rely on a more powerful outside force to install them. The US did it twice in the last half century in the same part of the world. That's why we've had so much trouble with Iran & probably why we're having so much trouble in Afghanistan.

Don't forget that you Yanks are a bunch of self righteous, hypocritical, bullying arseholes. Yet who leads this world and did anyone vote for them to lead this world. Hm I sense some hypocracy.

hippifried wrote:

Quote:

Machievelli was an asshole, a fool, & a product of his time.

But he did make some good insights on how to lead or rule. Again not important.

hippifried wrote:

Quote:

All despots are malevolent by their very being because that flies in the face of individual self-determination.

The problem with "Age of Enlightenment" mentality, like yours is that the "individual" is the bases or the foundation of civilisation. I've got some depressing news for you. IT ISN'T. THE FAMILY IS THE FOUNDATION OF CIVILISATION What type of rule best typifies family. MONARCHY. Individualism just reallymakes room for statism because individuals want different things. Also Individualism & Statism will always lead to family breakdowns. I bet you're the type of guy that complains that people are lacking family values. Well you have no right to complain when you think that the "Individual" is the foundation of civilisation. "Individualism & Statism" only make governments more intrusive thus making them far more powerful than any monarchy of old.

hippifried wrote:

Quote:

Respect is a two way street & has to be earned.

Gosh the only smart thing you have said.

hippifried wrote:

Quote:

Anyone who claims power without earning the respect of those they would wield power over are just a malignant swelled head waiting for an axe.

So when is "George Bush" and his administration going to get the axe.

hippifried wrote:

Quote:

They're parasites. Deliberately installing a monarch or any other despot to rule over you is like shoving a tapeworm up your ass or rolling in a tub full of ticks. It does happen, but it's always regretted.

What if they turn out to be good rulers.

So much of what you've just said to me "hippifried" has been so assanine.
Not once have you proved your point to me. Well you have a couple of times. I've stripped apart your arguments and comments and have countered them with historical facts. Please do me a favour "hippifried" & "muhmuh" do your homework when trying to debate me and stop using inane and assanine straw man arguments.
Good Day
09-01-2008
dbev

Monarchies Pre-middle ages (before 500 AD)

Which monarchies? .

In Europe there was the Roman Empire, which power was mostly based on slavery.
09-01-2008
trish

Quote:

THE FAMILY IS THE FOUNDATION OF CIVILISATION What type of rule best typifies family. MONARCHY.

Not all families are monarchies. My family isn't. There are and have always been successful families in which father and mother are equals and children are not ruled but cared for and given a voice in family affairs, a voice that grows with the child's maturity. I know families where children have no curfews, go to sleep when they're sleepy, eat when they're hungry and do their homework when they want to. My experience has been that children are better students and grow to become more responsible adults when their family is not a "monarchy."
09-01-2008
Wizzer

dbev wrote:

Quote:

Monarchies Pre-middle ages (before 500 AD)

Which monarchies? .

In Europe there was the Roman Empire, which power was mostly based on slavery.

That's half true. The Roman Empire's power was also based on military might. (Like a certain "Age of Enlightenment" republic throughout it's existance.)

trish wrote:

Quote:

Not all families are monarchies. My family isn't.

Most families aren't monarchs but it doesn't escape the fact that FAMILY IS THE FOUNDATION OF CIVILISATION.What type of rule best typifies family. MONARCHY. Oh btw hello "trish" finally someone with intelligence to speak with unlike "hippifried" and "muhmuh."

trish wrote:

Quote:

There are and have always been successful families in which father and mother are equals and children are not ruled but cared for and given a voice in family affairs, a voice that grows with the child's maturity.

True but there has also been successful families in which they have been quite hierachical with the father as the rulemaker, the provider, the protector and rule enforcer like a monarch. The mother as the nurturer, the supporter and semi rule enforcer like a monarch's consort. The children as the subjects. A person can 'rule' with kindness and love with strict punishments e.g. spankings for families context. Second of all, any monarch that doesn't listen to his people, nobles or consort is a fool and will always be doomed to failure. (In a family context, father = monarch, consort = mother, nobles = the extended family and close friends etc and the children = subjects.)
Please don't make the mistake that anybody that is ruled doesn't have a voice. Ultimately it's the monarch that make the rules and decisions.

trish wrote:

Quote:

I know families where children have no curfews, go to sleep when they're sleepy, eat when they're hungry and do their homework when they want to.

There are many families like that unfortunately. Still FAMILY IS THE FOUNDATION OF CIVILISATION.

trish wrote:

Quote:

My experience has been that children are better students and grow to become more responsible adults when their family is not a "monarchy."

So a family should be ran as a republic where the 'children' get to vote who are the 'parents' and after a certain amount of years they get to elect a new bunch of parents.
Wait a moment, what's this? There has only been a coup in the household and "Big Brother Jimmy" has usurped his 'parents' and made himself "president of the household."
We cannot choose certain things in life i.e. parents and their decisions. I'll say it once and I'll say it a thousand times.
- You can 'rule' a household and a state with love and kindness
- Just because you are ruled over doesn't mean you have no voice and you are oppressed.
- One the biggest and most pernicious lies of today is that "the people" have a right to choose their leaders/rulers and their laws.

"The family" like "the monarchy" is march more than blood relations. It's also about inheritance, spiritual values ( not necessarily religious ) and control of human nature.
Most "Age of Enlightenment" republics have always denied these 3 things and with deadly consequences.
Most republics have incredible taxes on things you inherit and peoples mentality reflect this as well. Have you noticed that nobody is thinking about their "will and testaments", many of the "baby boomer" generation are not leaving anything for their families when they die. With monarchs "ownership comes with responsibility."
As for 'human nature' republics seem to go to extremes with ideologies that doesn't reflect human nature:
- Communism
- Socialism
- Feminism
- Democracy
- Secularism

and those that reflect human nature too much:
- Libertarianism
- Capitalism
- Fundamentalism
- Fascism

Yet all of these are false. Human nature has to be subdued. Monarchism is good at this because it allows for certain parts of human nature i.e. families, tribes etc and it keeps at bay certain parts of human nature i.e rule of the strong, the weak should perish etc.

There was never any of these false ideologies before the "Protestant Reformation" and "The age of enlightenment", No left or right wing political spectrum and no nation-states and nationalism. Yet the 19th and 20th centuries have been incredibly more bloodier, oppressive and corrupt than any other time period in human history. Why is this?

I respect you "trish." You are intelligent and can at least give some arguments to my replies. Unlike "hippifried" & "muhmuh"

Please check out the websites for more info on false ideologies and how to counteract their foolishness. They maybe religious but they have very good info.

http://www.websitetoolbox.com/mb/royalcello
http://romanchristendom.blogspot.com/
http://distributism.blogspot.com/
http://distributist.blogspot.com/
http://www.distributistleague.blogspot.com/

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page